Hidden in plain view

What Morley Town Council Censored in the 2009-2010 annual report:

(2009 figure in brackets)

General Administration £107,204 (£85,877)

Total expenditure £190,630 (£169,107)

Balance as at 31st March £78,623 (£91,660)


(Accurate to within £1 due to rounding- the audit opening balance was £1 less than the annual report opening balance).

This information is in the public domain and "confidentiality issues" is MTC being what a friend of mine described as being... err... shifty.



Where did I track it down? In Morley Library, in a locked filing cabinet with a sign saying "Beware of the leopard"


(Not quite that bad, but two green box files were locked away somewhere upstairs and a helpful Librarian went and fetched them after consulting with someone behind the scenes).


In the box amongst a somewhat jumbled assortment of old Agendas, Minutes & Annual reports, there was the 2009/2010 internal audit report for acceptance at the May Annual general meeting. (I assume they did, the July Agenda with May Minutes hadn't made it to the filing yet).


Reverse engineering the figures once the closing balance is known is of course child's play. The arrogance shown by the Council that those of us who are actually forced to pay 99.9% of the income are not allowed to know the expenditure unless we went to the AGM is nothing short of astonishing.


The question remains, though, as to whether those figures were available for inspection during July, or if they were censored to visitors. (If there were any).


The balance sheet figures in the annual report are presented in a different way to the figures the Audit Commission wants. (e.g. the audit commission aren't interested in which committee spends what).

They do ask for staff costs to be separated out though, and they define staff costs as:-

"Total expenditure or payments made to and on behalf of all employees. Include salaries and wages, PAYE and NI (employees and employers), pension contributions and employment expenses".

The figures for the last three years are:

2008 £53,275
2009 £51,986
2010 £81,404


(The first two figures were published on the town hall noticeboard last year when the internal audit figures were posted alongside the statutory notice of accounts inspection. This year, only the statutory notice was posted, not the internal audit figures. I suspect this is redaction by accidental on purpose oversight, i.e. plausible deniability).


This year has leapt up without any obvious change of staffing in the Town Council office. I also don't see how a compromise settlement with a former employee after losing a tribunal judgement fits in with the definition of Staff costs above. 


Let us see if Mazers agree...

The Audit Commission speaks

Thank you for your email to the Audit Commission regarding the 2009/10 accounts of Morley Town Council as presented in that council’s Annual Report published online.

I must stress that the accounts presented on the council’s website as part of the Annual Report are not the statutory accounts of the council. The annual report is not a statutory requirement and so is not regulated. One would hope, however, that any financial information presented in an annual report would be both complete and consistent with the audited statutory accounts of the body.

The council’s statutory accounts come in the form of an Annual Return which is subject to independent external audit. The council must publicly display the annual return, which includes both accounting and annual governance statements, for 20 working days. During that time you may ask the council any question you like about the accounts or to see any detail of them. There is certainly nothing in the legislation that supports partial disclosures of income or expenditure in the Annual Return and it is, indeed, unusual. So presuming the council’s annual return is complete, you should be able to find the information you seek there.

Local electors have rights in relation to the accounting statements. These include the right ‘to inspect the accounts…and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them.’ You may find the Commission’s guide – Councils Accounts Your Rights – helpful in detailing your rights and how to use them. It is accessible at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/nationalstudies/localgov/Pages/councilsaccountsyourrights03072006.aspx .

In case of access to potentially personal information which is protected, you can also ask the external auditor (see directory at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/aboutus/contactus/Pages/ourauditors.aspx to find your local auditor) to determine whether the information you seek is personal information or not.

You may also request to see the information you seek through your rights under Freedom of Information legislation.

I am copying this response to your council’s appointed auditor and to Morley Town Council for information.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

George Wisz | manager limited assurance audits
Audit Commission | First Floor | Millbank Tower | London | SW1P 4HQ |

Questions to Morley Town Council

Eight questions sent to the Town Clerk under FOI today:-

1) The balance sheet in the recently published annual report does not show a closing balance. MTC presumably sought advice on this. Which body advised that it was legal to redact the closing balance and what did they say?

2) The annual report claims reasons of confidentiality for redacting 2010 general administration, total expenditure and closing balance. Is this related purely to the out of court settlement with K Barrett after losing the Employment tribunal in March 2009?

3) which party proposed that the out of court settlement be on a confidential basis- the Morley Town Council Barrister or the Solicitor representing K Barrett?

4) If it was MTC that proposed confidentiality in the out of court settlement, what was the justification for doing so?

5) Have Mazers been consulted in the matter of redacting the Annual Report Balance Sheet? If so, what was their expressed opinion?

6) Will the closing balance be redacted in the audited reports available later this year?

7) Had I have visited the office during the pre-audit accounts inspection window up until July 28th, would I have found that the closing balance was redacted?

8) Did any electors or interested parties inspect the accounts during the July 2010 inspection window?

Check back in twenty working days to see how I got on...

Where has all the money gone?

The latest piece of insanity from Morley Town Council is to publish the annual accounts balance sheet in the annual report- WITHOUT A BALANCE.


I can't see Mazars being impressed with that and await the audited accounts with interest...

*edit* I couldn't wait, see the post above.

All shall have prizes

Morley Town Council have decided that past Town Mayors should be given a commemorative badge to reward their contribution (in addition to their name on the past Mayors board and their photograph in the Council Chamber).

£1,000 has been allocated from the 2010 budget for this honour. Needless to say, some electors think this is a bad idea and feelings were high at the Town Meeting last night.

Michael Gomersal writes on Facebook:

I wrote a letter to the Observer last week and included copies of minutes which made reference to the past mayor's badges. They didn't print it so i'll post it here so all is not lost.

"Could a member of the Morley Borough Independent's Party please explain why, during such difficult economic times it is necessary to spend £1000 of tax payer's money on "Past Mayor's Badges".

The funding of Ten "Past Mayor's Badges" at £100 each was finally approved by the Finance and General Purposes Committee in November 2009 following over a year of discussions of which Cllr. Derek Bradley was a driving force.

As a resident of Morley I feel the money we pay to Morley Town Council could be much better spent on things such as school projects or help for the elderly instead of ten "Past Mayor's Badges" which will be of no benefit to the community at all.

I have always being a supporter of the Morley Borough Independent's but such spending at a time when many families are experiencing great hardship as forced me to re-consider my position at the forth coming elections."

I'm going to tweak it a little and send it to the YEP. Maybe I will have more luck there.

The reaction by the Councillors to being challenged was defensive and hostile:- they regarded it as worthy because the Town Mayors work so hard. Borough Mayors pre-1974 used to get one and it wasn't a large sum of money in the scheme of things. One Councillor told the person who raised the issue that he should be ashamed. Another one told me afterwards that if I didn't like paying the Precept that I should move somewhere else.

Morley Town Council is stuck in a bubble of make-believe pomp and circumstance that makes do-gooders & busybodies feel important about themselves whilst most Morleians are somewhat indifferent to it, especially as the £175,000 running costs are tucked away in the domestic rates bill.

Redaction in action

Redaction is in the Press a lot at the moment with the censored publication of MP expenses. As well as the removal of sensitive information, it can also be a form of editing.

The Morley Obtiser often edits letters to the editor for reasons unstated. Often it is to add clarity or for brevity; sometimes it is to avoid sensitive or controversial subjects.

This letter written by former independent Leeds City Councillor Stewart McArdle was published on Wednesday 17th June, however the Editor omitted what Stewart considered to be the most revealing and damaging part of the letter. The paragraphs omitted are shown in bold.

The recent spate of letters concerning the Annual Meeting of Morley Town Council and there being only three members of the public in attendance deserve some further comment. This may infer a number of things; such as that, members of the electorate have no interest in it, nor its relevance, or even may object to paying the precept!

Of course, Mr. Bywater is presuming there will be a town council by the time of the next all-out elections in 2011. By this I mean that the legal case/tribunal of the former town clerk versus Morley Town Council has yet to be resolved as the council has collectively decided to contest the decision made against them by an Independent Panel. So there is a strong likelihood that more money will be incurred in further legal costs with the legal profession being the only winner.

Latest figures released for expenditure are attributed to the civic year 2007/8 and show a rise of £47,000 against the coding of General Administration. This is not broken down but, in all probability a significant amount is due to legal costs. I also understand that the reserves of Morley Town Council diminished by almost £34,000 and added together, is a significant portion of the Annual Budget and more importantly, your precept money.

The former town clerk did not leave the post until Christmas 2007 so that is an awful lot to spend on legal costs in twelve weeks but, everyone knows that barristers do not come cheap!

As the tribunal did not take place till October 2008, the figures for 2008/9 should make interesting reading when released. Will there be enough in the council pot by then?

Yours sincerely

via e-mail

Stewart McArdle

How long does it take to read a file?

10 months, according to the CPS, who have finally decided that Walter Volks "will not be prosecuted over allegations of electoral malpractice"

The story is here (http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Leeds-councillor-will-not-be.5271531.jp) and here (http://www.morleyobserver.co.uk/news/Morley-councillor-cleared-of-breaching.5272680.jp)

May I make a few observations?

"Coun Finnigan said today: "I am delighted that these entirely bogus allegations have been dumped"

It took 10 months of investigation to decide there is "insufficient evidence to prosecute" these "entirely bogus allegations". Hmmm.

Plus of course, as sure as the Moon rises, we are treated to the inevitable "malicious", "spiteful", "vicious" and "political axe to grind" tirade.

However, maybe this should be pointed out;

People seem to be concentrating on the address aspect, which although it is unusual - apparently he is still on the electoral roll in Morley, although admitting to the YEP he doesn't actually live here. Which means he is able to:

• vote for Morley's political representatives even though by his own admission he doesn't actually live in the area.
• be eligible to stand for LCC next time around (you are eligible if you are registered to vote in the area or if you have lived, had as your main or principle place of work, or owned property in the area for at least 12 months before an election.) [my highlights]
• meet the qualifications to be a town councillor, as one has to, at least, live within 3 miles of the town council boundary to be eligible to stand. And I suspect that Liversedge is very much on the cusp of that. Either way, a local address looks much better on the ballot paper, even if it is the registered HQ of a local political party

However, this all misses the fact that Walter claimed eligibility to stand in the election, and has said as much to the press, by ticking the box against the work criteria conditions.

Now it is all very well stating that he was no longer employed by Kirklees council when he signed his nomination papers in April 2008 - but he only left there in March 2008 after being charged with Gross Misconduct by his employers (again, this was in the local press)

So, was he was cheating his employers ("gross misconduct"?) or has the decision been based on on the amount of brass he has received from both councils, or has he managed to produce timesheets accounting for how much time outside work he has spent being an LCC councillor? Or is there some other reason, in which case I'm sure we would be grateful to know.

Anyway, IMHO;

It stinks.

Pumpkingate

It seems that our Morley Borough Independents just can't keep out of the papers, although probably not for the reasons they would like. Today's Yorkshire Evening Post has a front page story about Morley's Deputy Mayor, accused of stealing a Pinata..

Meanwhile, we wait further news of the former Town Clerk's successful case for unfair dismissal, what compensation she will receive and the acid test- whether she gets awarded costs. (YEP story here).

The forthcoming Leeds Mayormaking will be a stormy night, Cllr Finnigan explains why Labour aren't happy.

It has all gone quiet on the Walter Volks affair, the Crown Prosecution Service still don't appear to have made their mind up. Faster than a speeding snail...

What's the story with Morley Town Council?

Last week, the Yorkshire Post reported that the former clerk to Morley Town Council, which is now 100% controlled by the Morley Borough Independent political party (they do not let the sole opposition councillor sit on committees) had won a tribunal case of constructive dismissal against the council.

This report, in my opinion, concentrated on the pieces of the judgement which the town councillors would prefer to be highlighted, namely that the tribunal could find no evidence of bullying or harassment against her.

Now, I declare an interest in this as some of the events occurred while I was on MTC, and chaired the committee which dealt with staffing matters. I understand that since the MBIs took total control, they have established a Staffing sub-committee chaired by one Paul Cook, of whom I had never heard of or had dealings with previously. However, I agreed to be a witness for the clerk based on my recollections of events whilst I was on the council, and my understanding of subsequent ones.

So please bear with me while I state a few facts. I will deal with the tribunal statements in another post later, but as a starter:

In March 2006 I wrote to the then mayor, Brian Judge, and deputy mayor, Robert Gettings. It was rather a lengthy letter so I will not reproduce it in total. But I will reproduce some points:

“I feel I must take the unusual step of writing to the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor to set out some very real concerns I (and I know I am not alone in this) have regarding the conduct and attitude of certain members of Morley Town Council towards an employee of the Council.”

· “My main point concerns the attitude and conduct of three members of the Morley Borough Independent political grouping towards the Town Clerk. You are of course aware that the Town Council is the corporate employer, and as such its employees report to the Council as a whole, not any individual member; but it does seem that these three members have taken a decision, either as individuals or as a “group within a group” , to make the Clerk’s employment terms and conditions, as well as the duties she carries out and the way her time is spent, their personal concern despite the fact that the vast majority of councillors are satisfied with the way the office runs and the support received from our staff.”

· “…but the impression given was that certain members are not satisfied with either committee decisions regarding employment matters unless it coincides with their own agenda, or the service provided by the Town Clerk”

· “What is, of course, really worrying about this incident is that it is the latest in a series reaching back to July last year. In my opinion (and others) it appears increasingly apparent that certain members of this Council are intent on undermining our Town Clerk, although as they have never made their concerns official it is uncertain as to the outcome they would prefer”

· “I am concerned as to the effect the “whispering campaign” and general attitude toward her is having on her health”

· “I am concerned that these people, and more importantly Morley Town Council, could find themselves involved in very negative public action; actions which in my opinion the Council and certain members have been fortunate to avoid in the past when an employee resigned her position – a position the Council was subsequently unable to fill.”

And lastly

· “Action by the Council could clear up any concerns these members may wish to make or merely remind them of the existence of employment tribunals and the Standards Board as referral to these bodies could well be instigated if the current attitude does not cease. Such action would in my opinion bring this Council into disrepute.”

The mayor did indeed set up a meeting to deal with this matter. Bob Gettings did not attend citing illness. It quickly became apparent that my letter, which was marked “PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL” had been shown/ copied to the members concerned in advance. As I said in my statement, I believe Mr Gettings did this.

More later….

Inspecting Local Authority Accounts

UPDATE- egg on face for this, the notice correctly confirms a different stage in the audit cycle, i.e. post audit report inspection rather than pre audit inspection. The Town Council have clarified. The inspection window was during August 2008.

My apologies for the confusion. I'll leave the post in-situ as it is still worthwhile being aware of the right to inspect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a little known entitlement for any elector to inspect their local authority accounts, as posted by the PJC Journal last Summer.

Our local Town Council put up the statutory notices earlier in January on their notice board and they were removed at some point last week. Looking at the actual announcement though, it isn't terribly helpful, even allowing for the crayon and the sellotape on the plastic window of the noticeboard. Take a look...

The question is- when are they available for inspection? Monday to Friday, of course, between 9am and Noon. But what dates? It doesn't actually say.

The law does though.

SI 2003/533

Notice of public rights

16. - (1) Not later than 14 days before the commencement of the period during which the accounts and other documents are made available in pursuance of regulation 14, a relevant body to which regulation 11(2) applies, or in the case of a parish meeting, the chairman of the meeting, shall give notice by advertisement of the matters set out in paragraph (2).

(2) The matters referred to in paragraph (1) are -

(a) the period during which the accounts and other documents referred to in paragraph (1) will be available for inspection in accordance with regulation 14;

(b) the place at which, and the hours during which, they will be so available;

(c) the name and address of the auditor;

(d) the provisions contained in section 15 and section 16 of the 1998 Act; and

(e) the date appointed under regulation 13.

(My emphasis)

This document doesn't do that. Indeed it only implies that the public can only inspect the annual return, a somewhat short summary document.

So, this document was dated January 7th, so the books would have opened no less than 14 days later, on the 21st of January.

How long are the books open for inspection? Four weeks.

Public inspection of accounts
14. - (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the relevant body or, as the case may be, the chairman, notified under regulation 13, shall make the accounts and other documents mentioned in section 15 of the 1998 Act available for public inspection for 20 working days before the date appointed by the auditor under that regulation.

That should mean in this case that the books remain open until February 18th.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I've read through the Act and the two subsequent Statutory Instruments. I don't see that a Parish Council is exempt from full compliance with the inspection regime. I will be querying the dates with the Council office tomorrow to hear what they say.

A more interesting question, however, is why Morley Town Council took nine months to do their internal audit, most Local Authorities have their inspection window 3-4 months after book closure.

A quote from the very helpful ONB website:

Orchard News Bureau Ltd specialises in obtaining information and financial data from reluctant public bodies.

Some persist in hiding or censoring information which voters, residents and taxpayers have a legal right to see.

But this company has a proven track record of challenging a sub-culture of excessive and unjustified secrecy within Town Halls and Constabulary authorities.

(...)
It is an unfortunate fact of life (the world over) that politicians and civil servants are freer to engage in corruption wherever and whenever editors and journalists abdicate their watchdog roles.

Mr. Micawber would be miserable...

More reluctant revelations from our increasingly secretive Town Council whose main medium of communication appears to now be the statutory notice board outside the Town Hall.

The (internally) audited accounts summary for Morley Town Council 2008 are now posted up. Under the terms of the Local Government Act 1972, they are now open to public inspection by any elector for a set period.

The summary indicates whether we need to dig deeper. What can we infer from these?

Well, the income stream hasn't changed very much (up by £1k), but the expenditure has, by nearly £37k. That overspend is more than 20% of the precept, the tax that Morley Householders pay. It has been absorbed by reserves this last financial year but the Council can't do that for ever...

The interesting thing is that it isn't down to staff costs, which went down by nearly £2k. What was it spent upon, we ask ourselves?

Surely Rhubarb isn't that expensive...

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

Tea and Rhubarb

In local politics, it is often the most innocuous and (to an incurious observer) banal events, which sum up the prevailing attitude of certain political parties.

I have a bee in my bonnet regarding how public money is spent. This is, from district council level upward, a complicated matter. However, this is not the case at parish/town council level. I get particularly interested if I suspect public money is being spent for party political purposes.

Now, we in Morley celebrate Yorkshire Day on August 1st. Nothing wrong with that! In fact, one would expect that the town council would support that through it’s (recently acquired) Entertainments Committee.

However, following Yorkshire Day, I broke the habit of a few years and wrote a letter to the Morley Observer & Advertiser, which amongst other things observed the following:

“This newspaper stated that that Morley Borough Independent councillors (not Morley town councillors) dished out the tea and rhubarb (I paraphrase). My simple question was, and is, who funded it; Morley Town Council or the MBI party?”

I have asked that question directly many times before, and since. So far, the only reply has been:

“"Ahh back to the Rhubarb, what interest is it of yours who funded it?"
(c) Chairman of the Parish Council (Terrence Grayshon Esquire)

As I say, a silly thing but telling. I don’t care if it only cost a tenner….

Why not just answer the question?

A quote from the MBI website:

Councillor Robert Finnigan said "Morley Folk have so many typical Yorkshire characteristics such as loyalty, tenacity and a desire for plain speaking.


Well said Rob!

What is a liar?

The Oxford English Dictionary is subscription only online, so I tend to use dictionary.co.uk (or dictionary.com if no entry found).

What is a liar?

Dictionary - liar - 1 entry.

1. Noun - A person who knowingly utters falsehood; one who lies.

What is a Falsehood?

Dictionary - falsehood - 4 entries.

1. Noun - Want of truth or accuracy; an untrue assertion or representation; error; misrepresentation; falsity.
2. Noun - A deliberate intentional assertion of what is known to be untrue; a departure from moral integrity; a lie.
3. Noun - Treachery; deceit; perfidy; unfaithfulness.
4. Noun - A counterfeit; a false appearance; an imposture.

What is a lie?

lie - 13 entries.

1. Noun - See Lye.
2. Noun - A falsehood uttered or acted for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth; an untruth spoken with the intention to deceive.
3. Noun - A fiction; a fable; an untruth.
4. Noun - Anything which misleads or disappoints.
5. v. i. - To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

(Ones pertaining to geography or sleeping snipped)

Now Wikipedia is somewhat more pragmatic about it, explaining various types of lies:

A lie (also called prevarication), is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly.
Lying is typically used to refer to deceptions in oral or written communication.[citation needed] Other forms of deception, such as disguises or forgeries, are generally not considered lies, though the underlying intent may be the same. However, even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being untruthful rather than the truthfulness of the statement itself that is considered.

So, is calling someone a liar liable to result in court proceedings? It depends on which definition applies, and the intent. A white lie, for example, may just be for the purpose of simplification where the full detail makes no real difference. Now, let us talk about parking in Morley.

This letter was published in the Morley Obtiser on Wednesday:

I am writing in response to the letter published last week by regular correspondent Nigel Bywater.
The new parking arrangements have been warmly welcomed by the overwhelming majority of residents who have raised the issue with me. Some have offered some suggestions to improve the arrangements, such as better signage and an implementation of the scheme between 8am and 6pm only, and we are exploring these suggestions with officers to see if they can be introduced.
To clarify for all your readers I would re-confirm the following.
All parking in Morley is free- there is no charge to park at any of Morley's car parks. The car park at Morrisons has a three hour limit for those spaces closest to the Town centre and there is no time limit on the spaces at the top of the car park. If you are parking in the bottom section for a three hour period, you need a ticket. You do not need a ticket if you are parking in the unrestricted areas.
The ticket machines stopped working on Monday and Tuesday last week.
I reported them following my own observations and they were fixed by wednesday. If Nigel Bywater had made as much effort in ringing me to report the fault as he does writing letters to the papers then I could have had them fixed quicker. But as ever with Mr. Bywater, whether it's the new sports centre, events in Morley, Morley's Mayor or the new car parking arrangements, he rarely has anything positive to offer.
COUN ROBERT FINNIGAN
Morley Borough Independent

Now I can't comment on whether the new arrangements have been warmly welcomed or not, but every time I go in (which tends to be outside of core shopping hours) there are puzzled people standing at the machines, asking questions.

Why do the Councillors need to explore suggestions about signage & hours of operation? Surely they gave it all careful thought before it was implemnented? Or was it a case of Traffic basically deciding the scope of the scheme and the Councillors nodding? After all, the original concern was people parking all day (which a subsequent survey said was not the case) and it seems rather bizarre to make the scheme a 24 hour one when it isn't warranted.

"There is no time limit on the spaces at the top of the car park"- Yes there is, 23 hours maximum, as specified in the parking order and mentioned in the document produced for handout at Morrisons, additional document item 10c at The Outer South meeting on October 20th. Coun Finnigan was there. Was he not paying attention, had he simply forgotten about this or did he just decide to lie? It is certainly a falsehood definition #1 and a lie definition #4.

"The ticket machines stopped working on Monday and Tuesday last week". And the rest. Qweensway 2 machine was broken on October 25th, November 2nd and November 3rd whilst Qweensway 3 was broken on Nov 2nd/3rd. How do I know this? Because I commented about it on facebook at the time.

He then proceeds to slag off Nigel Bywater for not ringing him. Surely nobody should have to ring Councillors as anything other than a matter of last resort when things aren't getting done. After all, parking attendants patrol the Queensway area and apparently always check that the machines are working before issuing tickets. Perhaps they should also report the faulty machines to their base as well so that it doesn't need the intervention of a Councillor to get them resolved.

I can recall Morley Borough Independents telling me not to worry about being smeared by the Labour Party when I stood for the Town Council, as it wasn't the done thing for politicians to attack "concerned citizens". When did that go out of the window, and why?

I also notice that the paper didn't print Cllr Finnigan's address. I'm curious to know if he is still living in Queen Street.

Morley Town Council money

It was quoted in this weeks Morley Obtiser that "the position of the council was "desperate" "

It would be nice, would it not, to know what "desperate" means.

I chaired the Finance committee on MTC for several years; and indeed still held that position when I stood down in May 2007.

In July 2005 I sent a letter to the committee chairmen (reproduced below, and all my own words). The following November Morley Town Council set their budget (my final one). This budget did not, in my recollection, reduce the level of reserves; in fact, I suspect owing to committee underspend, it may have increased them.

I recall speaking to a fellow member of Finance & General Purposes committee, and saying we can lower the precept here, because it aint being spent. I was twittered at for a while and in the end the precept stayed as it was, and is (about £18 for a band D)

Oh well, maiden post :)

"Dear

I am writing to you as a Chairman of one of the standing committees of Morley Town Council.

The Town Clerk has advised that external audit have recently queried the high reserves held by the Town Council. It has been explained that circa £36,000 has been set aside to meet the variance between the precept and planned expenditure in the current year. It would also be anticipated, although this cannot be confirmed until 2006 budgets are developed and agreed by Council, that a similar amount would be used to offset 2006/07 expenditure.

External Audit have stated that they feel the level of reserves held is too high and that the precept claim should be reduced in future years. Should a similar amount of reserves be retained at the end of March 2005; they will be closely scrutinising those annual accounts with particular regard to reserves and the subsequent precept claimed for 2006-07.

The Town Clerk has asked External Audit if they could indicate what an acceptable level of reserves would be. Audit advised that a working balance should be held to cover emergencies but could not say how much this would amount to and advised seeking further guidance from YLCA.

In order that the Town Council is not compromised by a further increase in reserves, I am writing to ask Chairmen to ensure, as far as possible, that all planned expenditure is committed as soon as possible. This will avoid a large end of year surplus.

If there are any problems with the above, please contact the Town Clerk as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely



Paul Jamieson
Chairman of Finance and General Purposes Committee "

How weak have we become?

(This post appeared at Underdogs bite upwards, a (small L) libertarian blogger of the sort that the Secretary of State for Bread and Circuses would not approve of. I have admired his very cogent analysis of the Righteous but this post came along and stopped me dead.

It is the best blogpost that I have read this year and worthy of much, much wider reading.)

First, a parable. Apply it to whatever you like.

There was once an unfenced hill where a flock of sheep lived.

One rainy day, a man came to talk to them. "It's cold and wet here. How can you stand it?" he asked.

"It's not so bad," said the sheep. " We get up when we like, there's plenty to eat, and life is pretty good most of the time. It's raining now but we can just go under the trees if it gets too much. It will stop eventually. We have our freedom, and to us that's the most important thing."

"It looks awful," the man said. "And how do you know it will stop raining? It might go on for weeks. Your land might become swampy and all your grass might be washed away. Tell you what, there is a big building over there. It's warm and dry inside. I will make it let you in. It's only fair. You deserve better than this."

"Is there grass to eat?" the sheep asked.

"No, but I will make the building provide hay. I will make it provide a place to sleep and food to eat and you need do nothing to earn it. You'll be warm and dry and still you'll be free. Really, it's best to take my offer just in case, don't you think? Surely you can see it's for your benefit?"

Some of the sheep were suspicious. "What do you get out of it?"

"Me? Nothing." The man smiled. "And once in a while, I'll invite the most special of you to come and live in a special flock where life will be more wonderful than you have ever known. Of course, you won't all be able to join that flock at once but I promise, every one of you will pass through the Golden Doorway eventually."

The sheep considered. A few distrusted the man and refused to go with him, but most accepted his kind offer. They laughed and scoffed at those who chose to stay in the rain while they filed obediently into the man's dry, warm abbatoir.

_________

And now, a rant.

Does anyone remember the 'stiff upper lip' of the British? The fighting spirit? The indomitable people who once ran a big chunk of the planet, and who could chase away armed guerillas with a walking stick and an angry voice? A people who, nevertheless, could laugh at themselves and had a great, if sometimes cruel, sense of humour? What happened to them?

Those people would never have set off a security scare because a schoolboy dressed up as the Joker and waved a plastic gun around. Those people would never have arrested a man in fancy dress because he had a plastic knife as part of his outfit. Those people would not have shrieked 'Terrorist!' at the sight of a plastic halloween skeleton. The first might have earned a caning, but not expulsion. The second and third should not even have raised an eyebrow. Neither should Old Holborn's walk.

The people who replaced those real British are spineless weaklings who jump at shadows. Who call the police if they are slightly offended by a word or two. Worse, the police respond not by saying 'It's nothing, don't worry about it', but by harassing and usually arresting anyone complained about, no matter how trivial and all too often, no matter whether an offence has been committed or not.

These new people are quaking, trembling jellys. They are frightened by mere words, and terrified by a raised hand. They take offence at anything they're told to take offence at. Those who consider themselves strong are those who have not yet experienced adversity because when they do, they run to the government for help. They cannot help themselves. They will not try.

Oh, there are a few real people left, for sure, but they are only a few. Most are now soft, weak loathsome creatures who stare at the unreality of reality TV from their well-pressed sofas and aim their rage wherever the Righteous tell them. The two minute hate. One day smokers, next day drinkers, next day hoodies, next the obese, next Eurasia... or is it Eastasia? Doesn't matter. We are at war with the terrorists. We have always been at war with the terrorists.

These people who once called themselves the Great of Great Britain (can we still use that name for this country, or is it not considered sufficiently self-humiliating now?) are useful only for rendering into animal feed. They accept every word they are fed and have no problem at all with the doublethink required to accept it all. Coal-fired power stations will kill us all through global warming. We must build huge windmills everywhere to save the environment and we must not install new power lines underground because that would harm the environment. Snow in October? That's caused by global warming.

They obsess about their carbon footprint while having no idea what carbon is, they accept that the same number of alcohol units apply to each and every person, that if they allow a ninety-year-old smoker within a hundred yards of them in the open air, they will die the next day from lung cancer. They accept that one ageing rock perv who everyone recognises because his face has been all over the news will sneak up unnoticed and steal their children, and they accept that social services can take children from parents for any reason they feel like making up.

They accept that everything that happens to them is someone else's fault and that they are entitled to compensation for it, and they accept that events on the other side of the planet are all the fault of the British.

Doublethink. All of it. And those minds, once the envy of the world, are now so numb and feeble that they cannot see any contradiction in the information drifting into them. None of it is sorted, categorised, analysed or considered. Every last bit of nonsense is accepted as if God himself delivered it to them.

Today I heard that Sainsbury's is offering education, including basic literacy and maths education to its staff. Good God, what is going on when the supermarkets have to do the job our schools once did? Basic literacy and maths. Hardly a part-time degree, is it? They have set a target of 25% of staff having a qualification within five years. While I think what Sainsbury's is doing here is commendable, the fact remains that they should not have to. We used to have schools. Now we have indoctrination centres and that is just accepted by those sofa-bound parents. They will see no contradiction in wasting years at school only to start earning basic GCSE's after a spell of trolley-pushing.

When did this happen? When was the spirit sucked out of the people of this country? It was no overnight thing. It started small and spread like fungus throughout the land. It began with the best intentions, as these things always do. It began when those who had no jobs were entitled to a small government payment to keep them going until they found work. That, in itself, was not the problem. Work was always the better option and the dole was an embarassing place to be. Oh, yes, there were a few who were happy with that dole cheque and happy to sit back and do nothing but for most, it wasn't enough.

Then came free housing, free gas and electricity, a host of freebies and a wide range of tax-funded benefits until unemployment was more profitable than most of the lower-paid jobs. The idea that those lower-paid jobs were just a start, that they could lead into better-paid jobs, seems to have been lost. The people settled back to claim, spend, and claim some more. Their bodies fell into disuse, their brains atrophied by the drivel pouring from the little box in the corner. That box now occupies half the wall in some living rooms, in accordance with its status in those people's lives. In many houses, most rooms have them. You can even buy pocket ones. The mind-numbing output is everywhere.

Now they are confused by contradictions their conditioning insists they accept without question. Why question, when some vestige of their minds already knows there is no answer? Just accept it and have another beer. Drown the confusion with a chaser of something fluorescent. Bodies flaccid, minds baffled, they accept that they are obese because they eat the wrong kind of food, not because they eat too much and do too little. It's not their fault, you see? If only they had more benefits, they could afford fruit to eat while they watch three hundred channels on their 60-inch flatscreen with surround sound. The contradiction is whisked away by doublethink.

There are a few real people left. Some who are fit and healthy, some with intelligence, some to whom these contradictions are obvious. A few who would, if they could, wake up the zombies the British have become and urge them once more to innovate, to fend for themselves, to reach for those stars they once looked up to see.

To dismiss insulting words not as 'offensive' but as 'the ramblings of a fool'. To stand up for those rights they once had instead of allowing them to be taken away one by one. To think their own thoughts once more. To see those contradictions for what they are, and to analyse and deny them. To take back their lives.

Can they be woken? I am sure some can. I am sure some of the British can be revived. If I thought there was no hope at all I would not be writing this.

For many, it's far too late. For many, there can be no escape from that sleep they believe to be real life. They will spend their time displaying Pavlovian offence at anything that is pointed out to them. They will bleat 'Baaan' on command. They will enjoy the daily two minute hate, and agree like those sheep that while they can no longer do the things they used to enjoy, the slaughterhouse is at least warmer than the field. Those are the British now. Those are the 'vast majority' the Righteous love to quote at dissenters.

It can be dangerous to wake sleepwalkers, and we know that the shepherds will try to prevent it, but if we do nothing then that abbatoir will expand up our hillside until it is covered. In the end, the choice is simple. Take the risk or join them in the warmth of oblivion.

The rain does stop. They just need to be reminded of that.

(Original post & comments here)

Contacting Councillors - What happened next?

(See previous post for the question).

A few councillors answered the question, affirming they had not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against staff. Their images have been made smaller in the collage below.

Many councillors have not replied (a few auto-replied but have not sent any subsequent responses). Their images remain the default size.

A number of Councillors replied but did not answer the question. One referred my email to the Chief Executive, others simply noted my comments. Their images have been enlarged below.

The Chief Exec subsequently replied, advising that he had passed my query onto the Chief Officer HR to respond on the matters raised. I await that with interest but I do not regard Council proceedings to be at issue, rather the judgement of the Councillors who initiated the action.

I was told informally that an email went round to Councillors from the Chief Exec on the matter but I have not seen the contents of that message yet. However, no more responses were received from Councillors after I was told that.